APHC010834532015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.388 of 2025 Between: 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD. ...APPELLANT AND 1. DERANGULA LAKSHMAMMA, W/o. D. CHENGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 2. DERANGULA CHENGAPPA, S/O. LATE D. VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. 3. DERANGULA SHANKAR, S/O. D. CHENGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS. ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT D. No.4-4, ULAVALADINNE VILLAGE, H/O. BHEEMAGANIPALLE, PUNGANUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA The Court made the following: 2 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.388 of 2025 J U D G M E N T: The present Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporation’), assailing the order dated 26.11.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.7 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge’s Court, Madanapalle, whereby compensation of Rs.2,33,500/- was awarded to claimants (respondents herein), who are parents and younger brother of late Derangula Vijayakumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’), on account of his death in a motor accident. 2. Parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) On 16.05.2012, the deceased, along with two pillion riders, was going on a motorcycle to Madanapalle from Punganur. When they reached near Poojaganipalle on Punganur-Madanapalle road, they were hit by APRTC bus bearing registration No.AP 11 Z 4347 proceeding from Madanapalle towards Punganur. On account of the said accident, which occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the deceased, who was riding the motorcycle, sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. A case 3 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.388 of 2025 in Crime No.99 of 2012 was registered on the file of Punganur Police Station for offences under Sections 304-A and 337 I.P.C., which was later investigated and charge sheet came to be filed against the driver of the bus. The deceased was claimed to be working as a mason and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He was stated to be aged about 23 years as on the date of accident. Parents and younger brother of the deceased laid claim under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, for a compensation of Rs.5,10,000/-. (ii) The respondent-Corporation filed written statement resisting the claim and denying that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent act of driver of the bus. (iii) On behalf of claimants, 1st claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the Corporation, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. (iv) Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration: “1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing Regn.No. AP 11 X 4347 resulting death caused to one D.Vijayakumar? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, by whom and to what amount? 4 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.388 of 2025 3. To what relief?” (v) The Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record, held that the accident had occurred on account of negligence of both the rider of motorcycle and the driver of bus and accordingly, apportioned the negligence equally i.e., at the ratio of 50:50 between them. Insofar as compensation is concerned, as no evidence was let in to substantiate the claim that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, the Tribunal has assessed his income on notional basis at Rs.4,000/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd thereof towards personal expenses, applying multiplier of ‘13’ and adding amounts under other conventional heads, the Tribunal has arrived at the total compensation of Rs.4,67,000/-. As it was concluded that the deceased had also contributed to the accident and negligence was apportioned equally between the deceased and the driver of the bus, the liability of the respondent-Corporation was limited to the extent of half of the amount determined and accordingly, the respondent-Corporation was directed to pay Rs.2,33,500/- towards compensation to the claimants. (vi) Assailing the same, the present appeal is preferred by the Corporation. 5 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.388 of 2025 4. Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for appellant, and Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for respondents/claimants. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for appellant-Corporation submits that the appeal is mainly directed against the determination of quantum of compensation. He contended that the Tribunal erred in computing the income of the deceased as Rs.48,000/- per annum i.e., Rs.4,000/- per month, without any basis and supporting evidence, and that the said assessment is clearly excessive. 6. Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, tried to justify the compensation determined by the Tribunal, by contending that the income of the deceased was assessed on notional basis and only an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month was taken into consideration, which is fair and reasonable, keeping in view the minimum wages being paid to a skilled labourer at the relevant time. 7. This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and perused the record. 8. The only contention raised is with respect to quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal. The deceased was claimed to be aged 23 years as on the date of accident and earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as a mason. To prove the same, 6 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.388 of 2025 the mother of the deceased was examined as P.W.1, who deposed to that effect. As the said evidence was found to be not sufficient to establish the nature of work undertaken by the deceased and his earnings, the Tribunal proceeded to determine his income on notional basis at Rs.4,000/- per month. The incident occurred on 16.05.2012. Having regard to the minimum wages prevailing at the relevant time, this Court finds no infirmity or perversity in the approach of the Tribunal in assessing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month. Though learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Corporation contended that the amount assessed is excessive, nothing has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that the notional income of Rs.4,000/- per month is excessive. Thus, the sole contention raised with regard to the quantum of compensation merits no acceptance. In view of the same and in the absence of any other ground being raised challenging the impugned order, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The appellant-Corporation is directed to deposit the balance amount of compensation as determined and awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned order, after deducting the amount, if any, already paid, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the 7 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.388 of 2025 respondents/claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares in terms of the impugned order. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 30.07.2025 IBL 8 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.388 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN M.A.C.M.A.No.388 of 2025 Dt: 30.07.2025 IBL